02 December 2018 1:33 PM

Reviewing the Papers on Radio 4's 'Broadcasting House' today (2nd December 2018)

Some readers might be interested in this appearance, which I shared with the New Statesman's Grace Blakely . Under discussion French 'riots', policing, UKIP's dash for the badlands, rail fares and nationalisation.

Share this article:

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Grace Blakeley is bit of a current phenomenon. She is an exceptionally attractive young woman who speaks very quickly and ostensibly authoritatively. She took a first at Oxford in PPE. This indicates the likely presence of brains but does not I suspect entitle her to call herself, as she does, an economist. (Not anyway a la Alan Greenspan.) Andrew Neil (BBC1 This Week) is clearly infatuated.
But if you listen to what she actually says she is really rather thick.

Len writes, "feel that I too have a right to see the legal advice on that proposal, advice that has been provided at public expense, so I want it published widely and in full."

I completely agree. The cheek of these people. The 'attorney client privilege' that would, between private individuals be absolute, in this case is absolutely not so. We, the people of this country are the clients! So yes of course we should be privy to it. If there is nothing to hide, why would the PM not automatically make it public? It is only her duplitiousness that has got in the way here.

So to avoid a possible cliff edge this Government chooses to enter a black hole that is impossible to escape from? This doesn’t seem a good choice to me.

The ‘Cliff Edge’ is no more real to us as it was to our former colonies or many countries, such as Israel, that were created after the Second World War. Plus no other country or former colony was ever required to negotiate, let alone sign, a Withdrawal Agreement.

I very strongly recommend the new article on Brexit Central on the leak of the legal note (dated 26/11) prepared by the House of Commons’ EU Legislation Team, which is headed by Arnold Ridout, Counsel for European Legislation, and a long-time specialist in EU law, including working for the ECC’s legal services team etc.

It directly contradicts the Prime Minister’s affirmations about the Withdrawal Treaty.

Peter, but this was always clear when she was HS. Her record on security, borders, immigration, policing, prisons were all apppalling. When May decided as a matter of choice to give up magna carter and any right to the British judicial system so citizens could be whisked off under a European Arrest Warrant without any redress in the U.K. to some foreign back water like Romania, criticised all over the world for its poor corrupt legal system, you know there was something wrong with her ideology and EU fanaticism.

Compare with her decisions under Windrush scandal. May had the bare faced cheek to say she followed alabour policy! She must have forgot she followed Miliband energy policy and recently Blaire stated he was asked to support her withdrawal agreement and Barwell, against assurances to Tory MPs, sought support from Labour MPs for her withdrawal plan. May offers no loyalty to her MPs but expects it into return! Worse still these numpties give it!

n effect, the UK’s PM is agreeing to our own incarceration and imprisonment.

That this PM feels comfortable about taking the UK into this deal is bad enough but knowing she’s conspired with the EU to achieve it fills me with despair that we have a leader of this great country quite prepared to deliver us into constitutional servitude.

I have always found May despicable in her political actions and behaviours but this act of wanton constitutional and sovereign vandalism cannot go unpunished

More nauseating is the sight of her lackey MPs daring to question the integrity and right of Eurosceptic Tories to publicly express their rejection, disapproval and opposition to this self-excoriating exercise.

May and her lackeys know the majority of voters do not fully understand the nuances of their surrender document and so they can call it Brexit and no doubt convince the average voter that it is indeed Brexit.

Those who follow politics in the way many on here do aren’t so naive and ill-informed, though we populate a tiny minority and there’s the rub. May is able to tell a very large lie to the general public knowing full well that the public will swallow it. She is a most despicable, dishonourable politician for thinking she can get away with this.

She must be crushed and this government undermined to save the UK from a perpetual darkness

As a member of the general public who is being made one of the (mostly unwilling) objects of a publicly-funded government publicity campaign to put public pressure on MPs to vote for the government’s proposal I feel that I too have a right to see the legal advice on that proposal, advice that has been provided at public expense, so I want it published widely and in full.

Not just shared in part with some or all MPs on a strictly confidential basis, as might be sufficient in some other cases, but published widely and in full so that all those members of the public who are about to fill out a Daily Mail coupon can have a better idea of what rubbish they are supporting.

Cameron said “ No more Punch and Judy politics” yet since those words were uttered the escalation of pantomime in govt has been beyond belief. Like watching a village hall production with wobbly scenery and dodgy props..oh and terrible actors!

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the moderator has approved them. They must not exceed 500 words. Web links cannot be accepted, and may mean your whole comment is not published.